Study: Media Coverage of Islam One-Sided

[Uthman]

Study: Media Coverage of Islam One-Sided
18.07.2007, klo 17.04

Coverage of Muslims in the Finnish media is one-sided and violent, according to an ongoing study at Tampere and Helsinki universities.

Most often Islam and related concepts and symbols are linked to terrorism and political violence abroad, the researchers say. During the period studied last February, there was little coverage of Islam as a religion and a culture. Practically the only exceptions were stories and programmes focusing on Muslims living in Finland, says the interim report.

The most common news items mentioning Islam were reports of Shiite-Sunni clashes and bombings in Iraq. Terminology related to Islam was continually used in coverage of the war, although there was virtually no discussion of religion per se.

Religious descriptions of groups and individuals were often used in contexts where references to religion were not appropriate, the researchers assert.

The research was based on material gathered from five Finnish-language and two Swedish-language newspapers, four magazines and five television channels.

YLE

http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id65273.html

 

[Intisar]

Well Finland is a really racist country, so I've heard, so I'm not really surprised by this. The defamation of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with no remorse was already a sure sign of the fact that such countries (I'm not sure whether it was Finland or Denmark) really don't care about Islam, but rather they are trying to get a point across which is Islam = terrorism.

 

[Encolpius]

Well Finland is a really racist country, so I've heard,

Really? From what source? My conception of the Finns is that they're all rather mad, but generally nice people...

 

[Intisar]

Really? From what source? My conception of the Finns is that they're all rather mad, but generally nice people...

My grandmother lived there for a couple of years and received rather harsh racial slurs. Alhamdulilah she's in England now.

 

[Encolpius]

My grandmother lived there for a couple of years and received rather harsh racial slurs. Alhamdulilah she's in England now.

Yes, well, I've seen minorities receive harsh racial slurs in many countries; there's always going to be racists in every society regardless. Therefore your isolated anecdote is not sufficient evidence that the Finns are a "racist nation."

 

[Intisar]

Yes, well, I've seen minorities receive harsh racial slurs in many countries; there's always going to be racists in every society regardless. Therefore your isolated anecdote is not sufficient evidence that the Finns are a "racist nation."

Hmmm, you're right that's why I added ''so I've heard'' to show that I'm not entirely sure. You're right though, every nation will have racists.

 

[KAding]

I'm confused. Is the study calling Finish media 'one-sided' because it mainly reports on the bombings in Iraq? How is the media supposed to work, for every story of dozens being blown up in Iraq it should find some Muslim family who live happy lives?

 

[wilberhum]

I'm confused. Is the study calling Finish media 'one-sided' because it mainly reports on the bombings in Iraq? How is the media supposed to work, for every story of dozens being blown up in Iraq it should find some Muslim family who live happy lives?

Bad news is always reported. Almost everything out of Iraq is bad news.
Therefore the news is bias.

 

[Uthman]

Hmmmmm...I'm seeing where you two are coming from. However, it's important we look at the following part of the article:

Religious descriptions of groups and individuals were often used in contexts where references to religion were not appropriate, the researchers assert.

I'm guessing it means things being said such as 'Muslim terrorist' or 'Islamic fundamentalist'.

Is that a fair comment?

 

[wilberhum]

Hmmmmm...I'm seeing where you two are coming from. However, it's important we look at the following part of the article:



I'm guessing it means things being said such as 'Muslim terrorist' or 'Islamic fundamentalist'.

Is that a fair comment?

I think it is a fair comment if they are a Muslim terrorists or an Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Uthman]

But is it relevant where they are Muslim or not?

As far as I am concerned, they are terrorists and their religious background has nothing to do with it.

Unless of course, they commit an act of terrorism 'in the name of Islam', in which case they are not adhering to Islam anyway so I still don't think that they should be referred to as Muslims even in these instances.

 

[wilberhum]

But is it relevant where they are Muslim or not?

As far as I am concerned, they are terrorists and their religious background has nothing to do with it.

Unless of course, they commit an act of terrorism 'in the name of Islam', in which case they are not adhering to Islam anyway so I still don't think that they should be referred to as Muslims even in these instances.

There religious affiliation is of no importance unless it is part of there motive.

If a person kills someone because of his or there race, then race is relevant, religion is not.
If people are harming other people because of there nationality, then nationality is relevant, religion is not.
If someone takes an action because he thinks he is defending his job, then his job is relevant, religion is not.
If someone commits an act because he thinks he is defending, fighting for, or whatever, there religion, then religion is relevant.

It is not relevant if there religion, race, nationality, or job justifies his actions or not.
The reason he did it and will always remain relevant.

 

[Uthman]

I think I agree with that.

 

[beespreeteam]

There religious affiliation is of no importance unless it is part of there motive.

If a person kills someone because of his or there race, then race is relevant, religion is not.
If people are harming other people because of there nationality, then nationality is relevant, religion is not.
If someone takes an action because he thinks he is defending his job, then his job is relevant, religion is not.
If someone commits an act because he thinks he is defending, fighting for, or whatever, there religion, then religion is relevant.

It is not relevant if there religion, race, nationality, or job justifies his actions or not.
The reason he did it and will always remain relevant.

Er.. that's fine. It's when you get the actual FACTS about the religion wrong that's pretty annoying...

 

[beespreeteam]

E.g.

Guy kills a soldier after having his house blown up.

Media says Islam promotes the killing of anyone who doesn't believe in Islam.

Islamic world goes SIGH ZZZ

 

[Keltoi]

E.g.

Guy kills a soldier after having his house blown up.

Media says Islam promotes the killing of anyone who doesn't believe in Islam.

Islamic world goes SIGH ZZZ

The media covers "30 dead in suicide bombing in Baghdad"...."75 Dead in suicide bombing in Mosul"...etc. I've never actually seen a story about one guy killing a soldier because his house was destroyed. Perhaps in Gaza.

 

[wilberhum]

E.g.

Guy kills a soldier after having his house blown up.

Media says Islam promotes the killing of anyone who doesn't believe in Islam.

Islamic world goes SIGH ZZZ

Can you give an example where the media said "Islam promotes the killing of anyone who doesn't believe in Islam"? hew
Na, it is just the standard distortion that we see so often. :hmm:

 

[Darkseid]

Well Finland is a really racist country, so I've heard, so I'm not really surprised by this. The defamation of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with no remorse was already a sure sign of the fact that such countries (I'm not sure whether it was Finland or Denmark) really don't care about Islam, but rather they are trying to get a point across which is Islam = terrorism.

No the most racist country is South Africa followed by China, Japan, Russia, Iran, and Israel.

Also a real terror in the muslim world is the mistreatment upon Egyptian muslims by fellow muslims in Libya and Iraq. Honestly, what is with the hostility towards Egyptians?